We recently bought a new TV. It is one of those fancy flat screen things, and my partner was actually surprised when I explained that I quite genuinely didn't consider the experience of watching stuff on it any better than the old TV. Seriously - I'm not into latest fashions, fads or trends in ... well, almost anything - even when they are
(occasionally) better :)
I am actually quite happy about the visual and audio quality of watching movies on my PC as well
(the seat I have to sit in is a little uncomfortable, though). Maybe that is because I am so well engaged with my imagination that I get caught up in the story ... maybe it is that I genuinely don't find the new flashier things any better than the old ... except that the new and flashy is generally worse for the environment - if only because something that is functional often gets ditched to make room for the new
(that isn't the case with regard to our old TV, though: that is going to someone else).
This all came to mind recently when I was on the receiving end of a comment the effect that someone ('X') couldn't understand how someone else ('Y') could do fashion thing Z. Now I'd like to give a few thoughts on that, but I'd also like to consider another comment I heard even longer ago to the effect that someone ('X') couldn't understand how someone else ('Y') could put food Z into their body.
Let's start with the fashion thing.
Now, with the exception of my partner and a couple of qualifications, I basically don't care what other people wear. My partner likes to look nice, and I like her to be happy about herself, so I care about what she wears and how she looks - but from the point of view of what
I and she consider attractive, not what some fashion "expert"
(i.e., what I will term a "fashionista") considers to be "fashionable" or "attractive".
When it comes to what other people are wearing or doing, I care about as much as I care about what TV I am looking at ... except for the following:
- if the person is a child, are the clothes functional/safe? If the child is GENUINELY at risk of, say, hypothermia or heat stroke, I will get the authorities involved.
- is it GENUINELY offensive or harmful? If a T-shirt had a provocative saying on it, ho-hum (and hey, I've got some of those in my signature block on this blog!): if it preaches, say, racial vilification or violence, I am inclined to have an opinion, and it is likely to be that the item of clothing is "wrong"/undesirable.
In terms of harmful, if someone was wearing something with razor blades on it, then, again, I would probably call the police.
Now, when it comes to stupid so-called rules like not having blue and green beside each other, I genuinely consider that to be no-one else's business. If the person is comfortable wearing that,
so what?
In fact, I personally would go so far as to say that I have
NO right to even waste time, energy and effort in formulating an opinion in such a situation [4], just as I have no right to formulate an opinion about, say ... what another woman does or doesn't do with her reproductive system
(so long as any kids are loved and cared for properly).
As an example of that, let's take the case of young women wearing very high platforms or heels. They damage the body; they create a risk of falling, but I have no right to form an opinion about their choice. It would, in my opinion, be spiritually
wrong for me to be critical of them for choosing to do something risky
(it's their business, not mine), and it would be hypocritical of me to say "I don't know how they could do that!" If they fall over and injure themselves, then as I offer first aid I may well assess their behaviour as being as stupid as that of a pedestrian who walks out in front of a car, or someone who jumps off a tall building
(mind you, I would probably call for a mental health professional in the case of the latter ... unless they are a stunt person).
If I go back to the comment about fashion thing Z, I genuinely consider that
no-one has a right to even formulate an opinion about it. I know people do, just as some people tell offensively bad jokes because they are desperate to make any sort of connection with others - I've seen that motivation in action with groups of drunks: it isn't that they're entirely not thinking, it is that they are thinking solely about bonding with their drunken "mates". There is a lot of evil done in the name of social networking/bonding/social capital ... [3]
In terns of the structure of the remark, thinking and feeling take energy - psychic energy. Meditation requires an expenditure of energy, feeling love takes energy
(although it has the side benefit of generating a lot of other nice energy), and feeling hate takes energy (but doesn't give a boost the way love does, it drags people down). So I am actually somewhat careful about managing my psychic energy, and waste as little of it as possible. There is a story that Einstein once was asked for his phone number, and looked for it in a phone book because he didn't waste mental energy on remembering things that could be looked up so easily elsewhere.
(I don't know if that is true, but it does help rather nicely to get the point across that I am seeking to make.)
So, why bother even saying you don't know why someone would do 'Z'? It is a waste of your energy, time and that part of your life.
Also, it is quite possibly a lie. My experience is that, many times, when people make such a remark, they
do know - or at least have a very good idea.
In my case - and hey, I use to wear blue eye shadow and high heels - I could speculate that the young women wearing very high platforms or heels have such poor
self actualisation (it's not actually poor self esteem) that they think they
need a relationship
(or, alternatively, they could genuinely have valid needs that they consider would be best met by a relationship), and thus they are prepared to do whatever they think is necessary to gain attention from males so they can have what they think is the best chance of getting into a situation that will, they think best meet their needs. That is sad on so many levels and in so very many ways, but, if I put on my grumpy hat, one of the things I've noticed is poor priorities - for instance, people refusing to wear security pass cards because they think it clashes with their "look". As a result, things happen like security doors being left open, and everyone gets put at risk
(I've had some unpleasant things happen in the workplace, and thus I tend to be very cautious about such things).
It's not always a "small" thing ...
It's also sometimes the same energy as that of more recognisable bigotry: I'll get to that in a minute, but first consider the possibility of the commenting on others actually being about fear: fear of being alone, or fear of being different (leading to being alone), in particular.
The drive to "belong" and be, or be seen to be, "normal" is very powerful. I've seen it lead to things like some
(most definitely not all!) trans people being stereotypical in their gender expression - things like skirts, make up
(yes, including blue eye shadow ... sigh), high heels, talking about women "all wanting to go shopping", and other such crap - which
too many cisgendered women also come out with!
That fear of being different can, again, lead to all sorts of social evils -
social conditioning being my particular concern here.
It makes bigotry easier to flourish - think back to when racist or sexist views were considered "the norm" and you'll understand that comment (I hope!).
More fundamentally, that fear/insecurity is exactly what underlies much bigotry and hatred.
I know many people say it is due to lack of knowledge, or being misinformed, but people can
choose not to go along with something as soon as they see it causing distress. I've seen some people who knew nothing whatsoever about the variety of gender expression simply choose to "go along" with someone saying they were gender Q simply because they were aware that saying otherwise would cause distress. The view that people "need" education - and I've expressed that view when trying to get laws changed, knowing what I'm about to say, but also knowing that I had to do so in order to get the laws changed - is actually crap. It's giving people a cop-out - they can lie to themselves
"oh I'm really not a bigot because I just didn't know".
The bigotry is more obvious, to me, with the food comment ignoring things such as:
- lack of knowledge of the other person's health;
- the inherent assumption that the commenter knows more than the person daring to make another decision;
- facts such as that other people may have spiritual reasons for their views.
Most commonly, this is about eating meat. Well, some shamans actually consider meat the best source of energy. Some women with heavy periods
need to eat meat to keep their blood healthy
(I'm not kidding on that! And that includes well educated, very health aware women who would otherwise be vegetarian).
Some people are aware that many plants die when we harvest them. Other people are concerned about the number of lives taken when, for instance, grains are stored and transported
(rats are killed in a number of ways, for instance; I posted a newspaper link on this).
In this case, though, I consider it a matter that people do have a right to have a view on
(it's about preserving life, and what price one or others may have to pay for staying alive), but having expressed it, they need to let it go and accept that other people have the right to do stupid things, even if it is embarrassing.Accept that you don't know it all, and that there may be perspectives on matters you haven't cvonsidered or even know about.
Some of the cautions I expressed earlier, especially about wanting to belong, still apply. That, and things like "group think" apply just as much in spiritual groups
(which is where I heard both comments, actually) as elsewhere.
I'd like to make a few more comments about some of these problems.
In many ways, we are basically herd animals. One of the consequences of that is that we can sometimes seek social connection ahead of being spiritually honourable, and slagging off at others can be a way to build up social networks
OR a way to seek reinforcement for overcoming our insecurities about our own decisions. Or it could be simple immaturity - the immaturity that denies others have the right to hold different views and take different actions and live their lives in different ways that is the basis for bigotry and prejudice and social control to enforce conformity of others. [6]
Whoa - bit harsh?
No.
I've mentioned previously work which found that male engineering students used humour as a weapon to control other students
(Sue Lewis' work in the 90s at Swinburne University's National Centre for Gender and Cultural Diversity) [5]: fashion is too often the female equivalent. Read the book
Queen Bees and Wannabes and start applying it more broadly, and you'll get the idea.
These flaws are all about putting material things ahead of spirit in ways that are the antithesis of spirituality. Sure, true spirituality includes a focus on the world and being in it
(remember the catch cry "e here, now" from the 60s and 70s? No? Well, it had a lot of good in it anyway :) ), but it is balanced, and doesn't waste time and energy on small things with no significance.
Dear Reader, I urge YOU not to waste time, energy or life on the small things that don't matter. If you're serious about spiritual growth, you're going to need all that energy for other stuff.
[1] BPF = Balanced Positive (spiritual) Forces. See here and here for more on this.
[2] Please see my post "The Death of Wikipedia" for the reasons I now recommend caution when using Wikipedia.
[3] This used to be particularly clear in middle class Australian in the 50s, when Prime Minister Bob Menzies (I think) once said something to the effect that he didn't need to ban the Communist Party (this was the McCarthy era) because of the social control exerted in the loungerooms of suburbia ...
[4] I woke early and, while doing a little pottering (housework!), idly flicked through a book on my partners: "The 7 Steps of Spiritual Intelligence", by Richard A. Bowell (Pub. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London/Boston, 2004, ISBN 1-85788-344-6). The book has the "feel" of a glitzy coffee book/best seller to me, but it does have some good ideas )the basic premise is the proposition of - in my words - a "Spiritual version of IQ / EQ". By chance (hah!), I found a couple of matters of relevance to what I am writing about in this post. In the case of this footnote, at the start of the chapter on StepTwo: Meaning (Chapter 6, p. 78) is a story about a scene from the film "Lawrence of Arabia": in brief, the film version of Lawrence extinguishes a match slowly with his fingers, apparently without any pain. When asked what the trick is, he replies that it is not minding the pain. Mr Bowell then comments "Training ourselves not to let our mind be formed by the small things - in his case the pain of being burnt - allows more space to be occupied with things that have real import." Exactly. A little more spectacular than my example, and a lot more succinct, but ... exactly.
[5] This point is also covered in Mr Bowell's book that I mention in the previous footnote, on p. 86, in the same chapter I quoted from previously.
[6] Something I've been thinking about lately is the comment that girls tend to mature earlier than boys. It's a statement that I've often made myself: I also disagree with it now. Now, I would state that girls may tend towards a more overt expression of emotions and relationships, but that is not maturity. Maturity is being able to stand on your own two feet, and being able to successfully manage a relationship is a different skill - one that, by it's very definition, involves interaction with others and, in too many cases, a reliance on others. As an example of the problem, I wrote the follwing for a post some time ago, and didn't use it as it didn't fit into the final article:
"Going back to Scott and Bailey, there was one femme fatale in one episode who had her evil exposed. Good-oh, but those people - of all genders - who use a smile and a pretty/handsome face, so to speak, to get out of doing stuff (such as obeying parking restrictions, or pulling their weight) are also using the same type of action. Not so extremely, true, but they're still being evil nonetheless. It all reminded me of a young woman I saw some time ago who was "walking" (if her hip swaying could be called that - good balance on those heels, mind), and barely exerting control over her medium sized dog, giving an overall impression of "Isn't my attempt to show my feminine weakness cute? And I don't have to control my dog properly, 'cos look - my < er, no adult filter, substitute "appendages" :) > stick out so far"."
Being in control of a dog can actually be important to other people's safety*,
* Very, very few people do this properly - most dog owners don't even have a clue what sort of control can exist - our dog, who has tripped me and nearly tripped my partner on multiple occasions because of a lack of training on the "heel" command - is certainly not what I would consider well trained. I had the good fortune to have a neighbour who bred and trained rotties, and she could tell her dogs to stay, and then back up 100m or so and the dog would stay absolutely still until she told it to come. She also trained the dogs for things like food refusal and taking commands only from certain people. Makes "sit" and "come" (after screaming it for 30 seconds) look as pathetic as it actually is.
Love, light, hugs and blessings
Gnwmythr
(pronounced "new-MYTH-ear")
My "blogiography" is here. I started this blog to cover karmic regression-rescue (see here and here), and it grew ...
May the world of commerce and business be recognised to be a servant, not a master, of the lives of people.
A home is for living in, not feeling, becoming or being rich or a “better” class than others.
The International Labour Organisation's definition of "full employment" is wrong, useless and misleading.
Armageddon is alive and well and happening right now: it is a battle
between the indolence of "I only ..." and/or "I just ..." on one side,
and perspicacity on the other.
Like fire to the physical, emotions to the soul make a good servant,
and a bad master. Spiritual love is far more than just an emotion - it
is a concept, thoughts, actions and a way of living.
The only prejudice should be against prejudice.
"Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger [people]." JOHN F. KENNEDY
One size does NOT fit all ... and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater as a result of knowing a little ...
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing. (based on writing by) EDMUND BURKE
Your children are not your children. ... They come through you but ...
they belong not to you ... for their souls dwell in the house of
tomorrow KAHLIL GIBRAN
We didn't inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we only borrowed it from our children ANTOINE DE SAINT-EXUPÉRY
Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
Those whom we cannot stand are usually those who we cannot understand P.K.SHAW
Tags: about me, bigotry, emotions, prejudice, self actualisation, self discipline, self esteem, society,
First published: Frysdagr, 14th December, 2012
Last edited: Friday, 14th December, 2012
